BREAKING: White House: Obama will veto any bill extending tax cuts for those making more than $250K.

Carney just marked that shit out.

For all earnings under $250,000

So they can stop whining.

is going to the RICHEST 20%

So, they ought to be pretty happy.

I still bet they will get more.

"I make $20K a year and I'm MAD AS HELL! Some day I'll be rich because I'm so smart! It's all those evil libs who have been keeping me down! And all those lazy n----- who want free stuff! WAAAAAHHHHHHHH!"

THAT'S MY PRESIDENT!

or did someone specifically say veto? (I'm not asking you, OP, I see how brief the AP article is, I'm just asking)

someone specifically asked him if he'd veto a bill that maintained the Bush tax cuts for over 250K and he said yes. No hesitation, no weasel words, simply "yes".

And they gave it to him by playing with people's lives and the national debt. Obama said:

This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/03/26/10871996-when-presidents-meet-a-hot-mic

Obama is pushing to extend about 73% of the Bush tax cuts.

Under his proposal, the top 1% get $40 billion in tax cuts
the top 4% get another $40 billion in tax cuts
the next richest 15% get $83 billion in tax cuts

For a total of $163 billion to the top 20%

The tax cuts for the bottom 60% - about half that amount.

But yeah, I guess, thank God Obama is taking a strong stand in favor of his plan to cut taxes for rich people.

Your analysis is interesting and all, but how about a link.

not up to date, but probably better than it would be now. Since the rich keep getting richer, the "Original Obama plan" probably favors the rich more now than it did in 2011, or 2008. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

As I said, in 2008, I was secretly hoping that the Democratic Congress would ask for more.

It sorta burns me up, that this is our BEST case scenario. That even if we "win" what we will win is a tax cut that largely favors the rich.

Somebody, (besides ME, that is) needs to be SCREAMING and demanding a lower limit. Demand $50,000 and settle for $120,000. That would still suck, but it would be twice as good as $250,000.

I'm on my phone so a pdf isn't so helpful but thanks.

and that was before I got the numbers from CTJ. Seeing the numbers kinda makes me furious about it.

I kinda thought it was acceptable, a necessary evil to prevent McCain from winning, but I also always hoped that a Democratic Congress would push that limit lower.

Given Obama's track record, I guess we will be lucky if the end result is $250,000. But I am still a lone voice pleading with people to ask for more. To not be happy with what is in actuality a very, very bad compromise.

Which will probably help fuel that talking point. If Obama stands firm, they will say he doesn't compromise. Well, Pelosi or Reid or Sanders or Baldwin or the Progressive Caucus or the CBC should be on the other side (with me, since I appear to be leading the charge) pointing out our disgust with $250,000. That $250,000 is already a compromise that we HATE. Hate it as much as Republicans do, but for different reasons.

Because the RWNM is gearing up to pound Obama for daring to stand firm instead of "reaching out to the other side". Well goddamit, giving them 73% is already MORE than half. Far more than half. That's how far he is already reaching out.

The tax cuts are on income up to $250k. So whether you make $10k or $1m, you get a cut on everything up to that amount. $250,001 - you pay higher on the $1.00; $1,000,000, you pay higher on $750,000.00.

that people making over $250,000 are still getting huge benefits from this plan.

80% of this country makes less than $88,000 a year. So the people getting the benefits of those tax cuts from $88,000 to $250,000 are people in the top 20% including the top 1% which still gets to keep $40 billion a year in tax cuts.

Consider this. The Bush tax cuts expire automatically - all of them, for all incomes.

Now pass that bill that Obama wants to pass - the 73% of the Bush tax cuts bill. That bill is heavily favorable to the rich. The top 5% get $80 billion in tax cuts, and the bottom 20% get $14 billion.

How the fuck is THAT acceptable to even a conservadem, much less to a progressive? Republicans are all over the media, demanding that the $250,000 limit be raised - to infinity and beyond. Well progressives should be somewhere, at least on DU, insisting that the $250,000 limit be lowered. Instead we are given a shit sandwich and we cheer like it is really chocolate ice cream. It's NOT.

So where are the progressive voices calling for the $250,000 to be lowered? Rachel? LarryO? Colbert? Stewart?

Oh wait, all those people make way more than $250,000 a year. They are NOT on my side in this battle. Senator Baldwin? Lame duck Kucinich? McFly? Anybody? DU?

they are going to get a larger percentage of any tax break by default. What's your solution? That people making less than 250k pay NO taxes at all and make the top 20% pay 100% of the tax burden?

"The top 5% get $80 billion in tax cuts, and the bottom 20% get $14 billion." Uh, yeah. What's 100% of zero? Zero.

If you lower tax rates, this same group could pay 98% of the taxes and the revenues received could still be billions less. Just like when Romney said he could cut rates by 20% and the wealthy would still be paying 60% of total taxes. Never mind that there might be a huge revenue shortfall and huge deficit...

First of all, it is Federal Income Taxes, not just taxes that the top 20% pay so much of.

In the second place, the bottom 50% still managed to pay $32.3 billion in Federal Income Taxes in 2007 (and that is AFTER the $14 billion in tax cuts). Since their/our total income was $1.08 trillion we also paid $82.6 billion in FICA taxes, and our employers paid another $82.6 billion in FICA taxes in our name.

There are tons of tax plans that would benefit the bottom 50% as much or more than the top 20%. What if the standard deduction was increased by $4,000? That would help taxpayers at the bottom and do very little for those at the top, because most of those people itemize their deductions.

Consider the making work pay credit, again described by Citizens for Tax Justice. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf
12.8% of that went to the bottom 20% and a mere 1.4% went to the top 5%.

So the statement that "the top 20% is going to get a larger percentage of any tax break by default" is a LIE promoted by a lot of super-rich people like Limbaugh and Hannity more than happy to rake in their lion's share at the expense of the rest of us.

As for my solution, actually we might perhaps be on the same side. Obama-types and many DUers think that the revenue shortfall can be closed by simply increasing taxes on people making more than $250,000 or even the top 1% or the top .1%. Whereas I think that the rich people making between $70,000 and $250,000 can pay a little bit extra in taxes even if that group does include a bunch of latte-sipping liberals who deny loudly how rich they are. And the sad truth is that many in that privileged group don't give any more of a crap about the bottom 50% than Boehner does, and they pretty much own the Democratic party.

both have blurbs about it, but it's just the same one sentence, sourced from AP.

I guess the AP has it from the source. This is good, if iso.

Perhaps this is Breaking News to repugnants who have watched nothing but faux noise.

However, anyone who has watched or read any real news for the past six months knows this.

Maybe repugs are just surprised to find an adult who can keep the same position that long.

I see a few DUers back to their old tricks, hinting that the President will do evil things because he said the word "compromise".

How sad the election is over and we have to tolerate these right wing tactics at DU again.

Julie

(with a different shirt, sans the hat of course)

Please.

Just do it this time.

Thanks for the thread, JaneyVee.

wealth, and others like them.

Not just prevent tax cuts....


Bring back the tax rates of the greatest generation and we eliminate the debt and deficit.

and nothing less, please. And thanks.

I'll tell them I'm an Eisenhower Republican. That stops them cold. Then I tell them that the highest rates under Ike were 90%. That he was paying off the war debt. That he oversaw the greatest expansion of the middle class in our history. (Hey, in this regard, we're all like Ike)

It works like a charm. It really gets them to visualize all the right wing turns that party has made for 40 years.

They never get around to the fact that I wasn't born then, nor do I get into the fact that I wouldn't have voted for him because of his social policies, of which I know nothing, just assume they were most likely too slow for my blood which runs progressive.

They say even Reagan woudn't fit into today's right-wing nut party.

But good for O, hope he keeps on for 4 years with at least this much focus.

but I stole a large chunk of this to respond to a facebook posting.
The person was bitching that $250,000 wasn't really wealthy. I think the whole 90 percent under Ike might get her to quit whining...

It doesn't make it to the President's desk to be signed. There is nothing here to debate.

I'm just sayin'... many of the professed liberals I meet in real life buy into the media line that the fiscal cliff will happen if the bush tax cuts expire, that the "massive tax increase" entailed is what constitutes the fiscal cliff and that the across the board spending increases are somehow inextricably linked to that.

I.e. most remaining liberals and lefties (those who are not extremely plugged into Internet activist blogs)

If you listen to NPR or corpmedia the drumbeat is "nothing makes sense unless you're willing to do half measures. The problem is caused by people who want ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire. these people are known as extremists because they're not able to understand that doing a controversial policy halfway is always preferable. always meet the fascists in the middle"

And I have since admitted it was a shitty deal. Would I still have supported it? Yeah, probably, no doubt. Unemployment benefits were necessary at that time. The SNAP build out was highly important, still needed to this day.

However, the economy is not in the state that it was back then, so as a "halfway measure" it simply isn't necessary, it would be an epic fail. One reason I voted for Obama was he assured us he would let the Bush tax cuts expire. It is the most important reason, for me, really.

If he fucks this up I will be really pissed.

Anyway, to answer your question, I do think that there are legitimate reasons to do the compromise and the halfway measures. I don't think that such reasons exist now, and I can't be sure how to convince people of this, except by pointing out the facts (such as the CBO report, etc). The Republicans do not want it reported that the Bush tax cuts do not grow the economy at all and that letting them expire has little effect on the future growth of the economy (and furthermore that we pay billions in interest alone).

If there's no sticking point and a constantly moving target (constantly rightward-moving) then it's a problem...

Don't back down on this!

I think President Obama will get the tax increase on the wealthy. Since this is a strong statement the House Republicans may give in on the tax increase.

Do what rational Democrats prefer - fold like a cheap suit.

It's not like people expected anything from a second term. Save us all the hassle and surrender everything to Boehner and the Repubs. We know nothing can get done without compromise. Show them all how to compromise, Mr President.

yes INDEED

elections have consequences

The top marginal tax rate make no difference whatsoever because none of the millionaires pay that. What they do is:

1) Shelter most of their income entirely from taxes, through offshore havens and/or complex corporate structures

2) Show some of their income as dividends, which is currently a special 15% rate for billionaires, but was the ordinary income rate before the bush cuts

3) Use loopholes such as carried interest to launder other income as capital gains, again getting the special billionaire's rate of 15%, which was 20% before Bush's cuts.

Obama is poised to sell us out again. Show me some action on the real billionaire scam and then we can talk. If you just go by the public statements, Boehner is actually closer to dealing with the real problem than Obama is.

As my question in this thread, it's left me scratching my head. $250k'ers or millionaires and billionaries, which is it?

it did not take long Obama is poised to sell us out again

I'll keep an open mind, but it is not heading in a good direction at this point.

My God. It seems that for some, President Obama is suppose to bend over to all of their demands. No way...$250K, make the lime $100K of $50K or worst $25K. WTH ever! Look President Obama is the leader of ALL Americans, whether they want him to be or not. With such, the 250K limit makes all kind of since.

Take two individuals married making $125K each. Now that is a lot of money to most individuals but with increased income, comes increased bills. Now still, this couple probably has a year or two rainy day fund BUT if one of both lost their jobs...they would be in just as much crapola that the married couple making $100K (i.e. $50K each) because of the lifestyle they were accustomed too.

So why not negotiate but be FIRM like President Obama is doing, the limit is NOT going above $250K. Makes perfect sense to me. Going to far to alienate folks that are at best upper middle class because of their income will have the Democrats falling apart like the Republicans are right now.

Win the election and let the circular firing squad resume. (Paraphrasing)

And the Republicans won't let us close the loopholes in the 113th congress.

Help me out here, for some reason I hadnt thought this or just took it for granted. When we talk about the 1%, and the 2% as I listened to the presidents speech today he referenced the 98%, so we say 98% and 2%, yet, 1% are millionaires and billionaries, surely people making 250k arent even in the 1%, or the 2%, am I right? I know it's a quarter of a million, yet even many here have said that a small family owned business can easily fit in that bracket yet live nowhere near like a quater millionaire. I guess I am asking, who is he referring to when he says we need to raise taxes on the higest earners, 250k'ers, or millionaires and billionaires. Honest question.

Do people realize they are open to cutting social security, medicare or medicaid in exchange for Boehner agreeing to let these tax cuts expire.

What a scam.

All that has to happen for the tax cuts to expire is to do nothing.

Once we cut the safety net programs the cuts will stay with us for generations. But the tax cuts for millionaires can be reinstated at any time.

It's a big scam and it's really sad to see liberals being led down this path by a President they apparently trust for some reason.

BWA-HA-HA-HAH!!!!!

Now this I can comfortably gloat over!!

Obama does what he says, and we know where he stands.

I'm not Charlie Brown. Believe it when it happens.

We've got your back - really!

As I heard him say this election proves without a doubt that the majority of Americans like what he is trying to do.
Once we get past the racist, bigoted assholes our country will be much stronger with much better race relations due to the fact we have an all loving person at the helm.

I want to see him do it then I'll celebrate!

up January 1, the SS tax cut also expires. I don't care either I think it was BAD idea in the first place.